The US military has assembled an impressive naval array around Iran. That is in addition to the 40-50,000 ground troops stationed in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE. It’s nowhere near the force required for a serious invasion of Iran. Instead, Washington is aiming to pressure Iran into an agreement to give up its uranium enrichment, longer-range missile forces, and regional proxies. Trump also wants an end to killing of protesters, though for the moment the protests appear to be quiescent.
Iran has indicated willingness to talk about nuclear technology, which makes sense. The Islamic Republic has good reason to make sure that the US and Israel do not conclude it is racing to make nuclear weapons. That would surely precipitate another joint attack. Inviting IAEA inspectors back to monitor a minimal level of enrichment, in exchange for sanctions relief, is within the realm of possibility.
Zero enrichment has proven unacceptable so far to Iran. An agreement without return of inspectors should be unacceptable to the US and Israel, not to mention Europe and other parts of the world.
An agreement that caps missile ranges would be unprecedented. So to would be an agreement that limits Iranian assistance to the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Anything can happen, but neither is likely. Tehran believes both its missiles and its non-state allies are vital to the Islamic Republic’s survival.
By continuing to insist on a broad agreement encompassing not only nukes but also missiles and Iran’s “forward defense,” Washington in practice is seeking regime change. Trump would welcome finding a figure like Venezuela’s Delcy Rodrigues. That would mean a major figure or group inside the regime willing to give the US what it wants in exchange for not trying to bring down the Islamic Republic.
By now, some leaders in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or in the Iranian Army are likely contemplating that scenario. Pulling it off though would be perilous. The US might try to help by decapitating the regime. I doubt Trump would want to capture the Supreme Leader, as he did President Maduro, but he isn’t above killing him or assisting those who would do the dirty work.
A conventional military attack would aim first at again destroying Iran’s air defenses and then at its missile and drone supplies as well as related infrastructure. I suppose command and control would also be targeted. Anything beyond that (cyberattacks for example) risks making civilian lives even more difficult. There are no military objectives that could be relied upon to excite popular rebellion and regime change. And bombing more often than not results in the population rallying around the flag.
Iran would respond with attacks on US assets in the region and on Israel. During the 12-day war last June, Israel suffered more damage than was widely reported at the time. Netanyahu is hesitant to go to war again. Tehran could try to close the strait of Hormuz, but that old saw has never really been used and likely won’t work. Oil supplies are ample and prices relatively low.
Washington doesn’t have anywhere near the number of troops on the ground needed to contemplate a ground attack. Iran is a huge country, as big as Alaska, with a population of 93 million. The US invaded Iraq in 2003, a country of 25 million, with 160,000 ground troops. More were needed after the war. Iranian territory is close to four times that of Iraq, with far more difficult terrain near the capital.
Unless Iran agrees to unprecedented constraints, or Washington drops its broad portfolio of demands, we are in for a long standoff. That’s a problem for the US deployment, not only due to financial costs but also the opportunity costs. It means not doing what might be needed elsewhere. But another attack on Iran is unlikely to produce the result that would please Netanyahu and Trump most: an end to the Islamic Republic.
That doesn’t mean it won’t happen. The Trump Administration is suffering on many fronts. He is underwater on the economy, trade, immigration, and inflation. Not to mention the Epstein files. He wouldn’t be the first American president to go to war for domestic political reasons. And he looks for opportunities to display unrestrained power. A Tonkin Gulf incident wouldn’t be difficult to arrange with all those US ships floating around.
The Board of Peace is another Donald Trump scam intended to empower himself. The sooner…
Trump should understand that the quickest way to end the Ukraine war is to tighten…
This move wouldn't necessarily save Greenland, Venezuela, or Iran, but it would slow Trump's perfidies…
Trump is hurting American security in the Arctic. He wouldn't know a threat to national…
A one-state outcome with unequal rights will prevail. Frustration will increase and boil over, tragically…
The US and Iran do not have immutable reasons for mutual hostility. A modus vivendi…